James Gurney

This daily weblog by Dinotopia creator James Gurney is for illustrators, plein-air painters, sketchers, comic artists, animators, art students, and writers. You'll find practical studio tips, insights into the making of the Dinotopia books, and first-hand reports from art schools and museums.

Subscribe

Imaginative Realism

Dinotopia: The World Beneath

"A ravishing, action-packed adventure." —Smithsonian. Now with 32 extra behind-the-scenes pages. Signed by the author/illustrator

Dinotopia: Journey to Chandara

160 pages, fully illustrated in color. Written and illustrated by James Gurney. Signed by the author

Donating = Loving

Writing GurneyJourney takes dozens of hours each month. If you get as much out of this blog as you get from a cup of coffee or a nice meal out, please consider contributing to my citizen journalism in the visual arts.

CG Art

Contact

or by email:gurneyjourney (at) gmail.comSorry, I can't give personal art advice or portfolio reviews. If you can, it's best to ask art questions in the blog comments.

Permissions

All images and text are copyright 2015 James Gurney and/or their respective owners. Dinotopia is a registered trademark of James Gurney. For use of text or images in traditional print media or for any commercial licensing rights, please email me for permission.

However, you can quote images or text without asking permission on your educational or non-commercial blog, website, or Facebook page as long as you give me credit and provide a link back. Students and teachers can also quote images or text for their non-commercial school activity. It's also OK to do an artistic copy of my paintings as a study exercise without asking permission.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

In some previous posts, we’ve looked at how eyetracking technology tells us something about how people look at paintings. But what about movies? How does the element of motion influence the attention of the viewer?

Scientists at the DIEM Project (Dynamic Images and Eye Movement) have shown snippets from films to viewers and tracked the movements of their eyes. In the case of this clip, 48 viewers participated, so the sampling size is quite large. In addition to little ovals showing where individuals glanced, the video is overlaid with a “heatmap” which compiles viewer data to show where the vast majority of viewers were looking at a given moment.

Here are some of my observations:
1. In scenes with an even overall visual texture (such as at 1 minute: 2 seconds), the center of gaze goes to a default position in the middle of the screen.
2. People seem to anchor their gaze on the nose of the face, perhaps “reading” the rest of the face in peripheral vision from that position.
3. Viewers tend to look at the person who is speaking (not surprisingly). Getting them to look at a listener in a dramatic film is a collaboration of acting, directing, and editing.
4. When one scene cuts to another, the eye hangs in its last focal point for a bit, so editors who place the focus for the next frame in the same location will do the viewers a favor.
5. Viewers are highly goal-driven in the way they look at movie scenes. They scan for meaning.
6. Anomalies attract attention, like the goop stuck on the side of the pot at 32 seconds.
7. In fast cutting, the eye reverts to the default center (1:14-1:18)...
8. ...Which suggests that most visual information in fast-cut action scenes in movies is processed from peripheral, not foveal information. So why bother with detailed VFX, other than to give eye-candy to DVD stop-frame hounds?
9. What the heck are chili plasters?

13 comments:

Chili plasters? I wonder if they were like the mustard plasters my parents would put on my chest as a child when I had the croup. Those were supposed to loosen up your airways. Not sure if chili plasters are the same, but they did have mustard in them.

Plaster in British countries can mean bandage. I have some chili plasters from Germany. They are for things like back pain, when you put them on, they are mild, but within a half hour they begin to feel hot, then hotter, like a chemical burn. This (in theory) brings blood flow to the injury.

This is interesting. Even if for the most part it all felt very logical. I think that at the part where the guy moves the saucepan where we can't see it behind the other guy, the viewers eyes seemed to track the imagined position of the pan.

Good point about the fast cutting. It's why I get so bored watching films like Transformers, where the visuals should be impressing me (especially with that kind of budget!) but my eyes tend to lose focus fairly quickly.

I wonder if the results would differ if this test was given to film critics who are used to acknowledging aspects of a frame or scene that the layman may overlook?

I wonder if there is a difference between "looking" and "seeing." These experiments track the movement of the eyes, but the eyes are nothing without the brain, which is constantly processing the input the eyes give.

Interesting! I do wonder, though, if the race or nationality or ethnic background of the viewer might change the focal points a bit. It's my (possibly erroneous) understanding that in some cultures, unlike the American white middle class that I'm part of, in conversation it is the speaker who looks at the listener's face, while the listener looks away from the speaker. It's cultural, is what I was told.

Interesting how the heat maps are very wide when there are no faces in view, or actions to which direct attention is paid. As soon as a face comes into view, the heat map immediately centres around the nose and becomes much narrower.

I wonder what the heat maps would have been if someone in a bear suit (or similar) would have walked through one of the shots.

James-These ‘eye-tracking’ posts are very interesting. Thanks for keeping us in the loop on this evolving subject.I think ‘phiq’ has introduced an important question: “What is the difference between ‘looking’ and ‘seeing’”? I think eye-tracking is all about how we ‘look’… which, as a visual artist, is important to understand, and can help us create more dynamic and narrative pictures (your #8 point about VFX is well taken). What I am struck by is what the tracking doesn’t seem to be tracking: Almost all of the conventional compositional elements!... Line, form, contrast, color ,rhythm, texture, proportion, negative space, etc.If we want to draw attention (pun intended), put a nose on it… or stick it in the middle of the picture- that’s ‘Looking’. If we want to create an interesting painting we must help our audience to have an aesthetic experience.Your blog and your books are certainly helping us all to do a better job. Thanx-RQ

Nick, eye tracking tests with still images show that artists do look at images differently, and I would guess the same is true with film.

Phiq, a recording of a scanpath on still images can hint at cognition behind the movement of the focal center. You can tell when someone "zones out," for example.

Terry, you raised a number of questions that would make interesting research topics. I find I look at the other person more when I'm listening than when I'm speaking. I would doubt that such social rules of eye contact transfer to looking at faces on film.

Sirithduriel movement compels and misdirects attention—which is the magician's art.

Roberto--good thoughts. It seems to me what these eye tracking systems are missing is the shift from foveated vision (concentrating on the center of vision only) and peripheral vision, where we broaden our awareness to the big picture, without necessarily moving the center of vision. I can feel myself making that conscious adjustment while looking at a static scene, but there's no way an eye tracker would catch it.